"Pro slavery forces cause worst civilian atrocity of the war"

[SouthernByGrace]

STILL waiting for one of the northern apologists to post the Article of the Constitution, or even the federal law that, in 1860 or 1861 prohibited a state from leaving the Union.  Again, until you can show that, all your arguments and calling it treason are just so much hot air and wishful thinking.

Show us a provision in the Constitution that provides for secession.
There isn't any.
Show us a provision in the Constitution that would allow a seceding state to occupy a federal fort and seized federal arms.
There isn't any.
The Union was perpetual, and no country recognized the Confederacy.

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.

ironfoot, have you ever heard of the Articles of Confederation? Those Articles preceded the Constitution, and you know what? They actually STATED that the union under the Articles WAS PERPETUAL!!! If it was so perpetual, how did Every state in that Union SECEDE from it to form a new government under the Constitution?

And you know something else? Not every state seceded from the Articles at the same time, and the new government under the Constitution didn't invade those states and force them to either.

A seceding state can occupy a federal fort the exact same way all 13 seceding Colonies occupied British forts within their boundaries. After secession, those forts were no longer property of the British Empire. When the Southern states seceded, those forts were no longer property of the United States. Oh, and by the way, the United States has aided, or incited more secession movements that any other nation on Earth. They approved of each and every one of them EXCEPT the southern states. WHY? Because none of those other secession movements were of countries footing the bill to run the U.S. government!
Abraham Lincoln said it best... In a speech in 1848 on the Mexican War, Abraham Lincoln said, "...Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world..."
He made pretty much this same speech 3 more times, dealing with other secession movements before he was elected President.

As I stated earlier, the 10th Amendment make it plain, "The POWERS NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Hypocrisy does not become you.

SBG

[williamlayton]

SBG
Well, we are not under the Articles of Confederation.
I believe that there was no attempt in the Constitution to allow for secession. That is the way the Administration read it--and the Congress.
The South tried to secede--God bless 'em--it just didn't work out the way they wanted.
On the other hand, while the Union won the Civil War---who won the war of reconstruction?
DIXIECRATS. The South loved 'em so much they lost their sense of direction.
Blessings

[rio grande]

Regardless the causes of the war, and whether the States had the right to secede...
the attack on Lawrence, Kansas was NOT the 'worst civilian atrocity of the war".

[subdjoe]

SBG
Well, we are not under the Articles of Confederation.
I believe that there was no attempt in the Constitution to allow for secession. That is the way the Administration read it--and the Congress.
The South tried to secede--God bless 'em--it just didn't work out the way they wanted.
On the other hand, while the Union won the Civil War---who won the war of reconstruction?
DIXIECRATS. The South loved 'em so much they lost their sense of direction.
Blessings

You are wrong, Willy, the Constitution DOES provide for secession.  It does not prohibit it.  No clause of the Constitution calls for perpetual union, no clause prohibits secession.  That, per the 10th Amendment is all that is required to make secession possible and legal under the Constitution.  As I pointed out in an earlier post, the US government itself taught that states had the right to withdraw from the union, and that use of force to prevent it was unconstitutional.

At least you were able to figure out that we are not bound by the perpetual union clause of the Articles of Confederation.  But you don't seem to understand that that clause isn't in the Constitution.

[subdjoe]

From your link, IF:

In his inaugural address, Lincoln noted Congressional approval of the Corwin amendment and stated that he "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Yep, Lincoln, the great emancipator, was willing to make slavery perpetual and permanent in the US. 

So, again, I have to ask you, in light of that, how can you keep up your chant of "It was only about slavery!"?

Subdjoe

You claim I said "It was only about slavery!"
Please show me where you find that quote that you attribute to me.

You don't use that exact phrase, no.  But any time anyone even hints that there might have been other reasons for secession, you proof-text something and end with "it was about slavery."  That is the only issue you raise. 

[SouthernByGrace]

SBG
Well, we are not under the Articles of Confederation.

My Point, Exactly! The point being that the Articles WERE perpetual yet, the states SECEDED from them ANYWAY!

I believe that there was no attempt in the Constitution to allow for secession. That is the way the Administration read it--and the Congress.

No sir, you are Wrong. The 10th Amendment covers this and no "interpretation" is needed. It is Specific. "The POWERS NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The South tried to secede--God bless 'em--it just didn't work out the way they wanted.

Wrong again, Willie; The South did not TRY to secede, They DID secede, SUCCESSFULLY, and LEGALLY! What else would you call it when they formed their own government, wrote a legally binding constitution, and were a fully functioning government for 4 years?!? I don't think you people are paying attention...

And you still have not answered my question... If it was as you believe it was, WHY didn't they change the Constitution after the War to Expressly Forbid secession? WHY have they Still not done it?  Joe is write, the Constitution, by NOT Prohibiting secession, in fact Reserves that right to the states. I don't know what else you can read into that! It is that specific. Have you ever thought that the founding fathers purposely omitted the "perpetual" nature of the Articles when they drafted the Constitution because they actually Wanted states to have the right to leave if they so desired?

SBG

[subdjoe]

Wrong again, Willie; The South did not TRY to secede, They DID secede, SUCCESSFULLY, and LEGALLY! What else would you call it when they formed their own government, wrote a legally binding constitution, and were a fully functioning government for 4 years?!? I don't think you people are paying attention...

SBG

More than that, SBG, if the southern states did not, as Willy claims, leave the Union, then why did they have to be readmitted to it? 

[williamlayton]

If they did they still are---why then are they in the Union.
That is a illogical argument.
The same with trying to pull the rights of the Confederation into a Republic. A Republic, by definition, is a perpetual establishment.
There would need to be specific wording to allow secession--it is not in the Constitution becaus the rights were not specifically given to the state. In fact these rights were withheld. There were bo right granted--therefore they were witheld.
Bottom line they are now a part of the Union and by loosing the cannot secede----but there is that old addage that folks can try to do anything they want if they are big enough.
Blessings 

[williamlayton]

To attempt to get back on topic  War in itsownself is the biggest atrocity man can commit on man--everything else that happens is just a sidebar.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

A Republic, by definition, is a perpetual establishment.

Um.....from where did that bit of twisted sophistry come, Mr. Dumpty?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

Handy way to make sure you are never wrong in anything, I must say, to just redefine terms at whim. 

[williamlayton]

Joe
look it up. A republic is a nation--not a confederation.
Joe---I certainly do think I am correct. Lincoln thought so, many people thought so, Sam Houston thought so. This is not something I made up. I think it is true today.
There are options but none under law.
I keep wondering why you ignore the thoughts that this war was going to happen sooner or later.
Blessings

[ironfoot]

Regardless the causes of the war, and whether the States had the right to secede...
the attack on Lawrence, Kansas was NOT the 'worst civilian atrocity of the war".

I agree, and said so in a previous post. I think the South's perpetuation of slavery was the worst civilian atrocity.

[ironfoot]

STILL waiting for one of the northern apologists to post the Article of the Constitution, or even the federal law that, in 1860 or 1861 prohibited a state from leaving the Union.  Again, until you can show that, all your arguments and calling it treason are just so much hot air and wishful thinking.

Show us a provision in the Constitution that provides for secession.
There isn't any.
Show us a provision in the Constitution that would allow a seceding state to occupy a federal fort and seized federal arms.
There isn't any.
The Union was perpetual, and no country recognized the Confederacy.

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.

ironfoot, have you ever heard of the Articles of Confederation? Those Articles preceded the Constitution, and you know what? They actually STATED that the union under the Articles WAS PERPETUAL!!! If it was so perpetual, how did Every state in that Union SECEDE from it to form a new government under the Constitution?

And you know something else? Not every state seceded from the Articles at the same time, and the new government under the Constitution didn't invade those states and force them to either.
What is your point exactly?[/color]A seceding state can occupy a federal fort the exact same way all 13 seceding Colonies occupied British forts within their boundaries. After secession, those forts were no longer property of the British Empire. When the Southern states seceded, those forts were no longer property of the United States. Oh, and by the way, the United States has aided, or incited more secession movements that any other nation on Earth. They approved of each and every one of them EXCEPT the southern states. WHY? Because none of those other secession movements were of countries footing the bill to run the U.S. government!
Abraham Lincoln said it best... In a speech in 1848 on the Mexican War, Abraham Lincoln said, "...Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world..."
He made pretty much this same speech 3 more times, dealing with other secession movements before he was elected President.

As I stated earlier, the 10th Amendment make it plain, "The POWERS NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Hypocrisy does not become you.

SBG

Good to see you are quoting Lincoln. Since you agree with Lincoln, you must appreciate his 1st Inaugural Address where he stated the Union was perpetual. To say otherwise might sound hypocrytical.


 Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
 But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
 It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

[SouthernByGrace]

Good to see you are quoting Lincoln. Since you agree with Lincoln, you must appreciate his 1st Inaugural Address where he stated the Unuion was perpetual. To say otherwise might sound hypocrytical.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

You are trying to twist things too ironfoot. I was pointing out your hypocrisy (and Lincoln's) from this speech. He clearly says he believes in secession. His saying the union is perpetual does not make it so. He is stating his opinion. Just like his writing the Emancipation Proclamation does not make it a legal document or a law.
What the Constitution says in not opinion but FACT...

Go find some other creek to fish in because they ain't biting in this one. 

SBG

[ironfoot]

Good to see you are quoting Lincoln. Since you agree with Lincoln, you must appreciate his 1st Inaugural Address where he stated the Unuion was perpetual. To say otherwise might sound hypocrytical.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

You are trying to twist things too ironfoot. I was pointing out your hypocrisy (and Lincoln's) from this speech. He clearly says he believes in secession. His saying the union is perpetual does not make it so. He is stating his opinion. Just like his writing the Emancipation Proclamation does not make it a legal document or a law.
What the Constitution says in not opinion but FACT...

Go find some other creek to fish in because they ain't biting in this one. 

SBG

You are comparing apples to oranges.

This quotation does not address the question of states rights. It addresses what is usually called "the right to revolution."
 In 1861, Lincoln sincerely believed that a small minority of southerners had manipulated the political process to overawe the majority of southern citizens and that secession was not supported by the majority of southern citizens. He believed that the political South (by which he meant adult white men) opposed secession and that secession conventions were illegal and unrepresentative.
 That is why he thought going to war over secession was not opposing a genuine revolution of the southern people.
 You may disagree with his thinking but he really did think about this and articulate a theory that many other northerners agreed with as well as southern unionists who did not recognize the south's secession.
 But to repeat myself, Lincoln's words refer to the right of revolution, not to states' rights doctrine.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080810190553AAJ2yRJ

Just because somebody doesn't see it your way doesn't make them a hypocrit.
Can't your arguments hold up without the need for name calling?

[Casull]

Very, very well done SBG.  The twisted "logic" of William and IF defies comment.

[subdjoe]

I did look it up, Willy.  I could not find any definition of "republic" that said it was perpetual.

And where the hell do you come up with "why you ignore the thoughts that this war was going to happen sooner or later."  I've never even suggested such a thing.  At some point, because of the cultural differences between north and south, and the many times larger northern industrialized population and the need for government intervention to protect that industry, conflict of some sort was inevitable.  Especially with the south paying a disproportionate share to build and improve the infrastructure of the north while southern infrastructure was ignored by the federal government. 

You keep quoting things that politicians thought or felt.  That's nice.  Their thoughts and feelings are not the law of the land.  You have said several times in this thread that we should ignore/discount/forget about/set aside (I'm not going to take the time to go back and look up your exact wording and font style and size you used, you know what I mean and that was the meaning of what you posted) the law and the Constitution.  You must be channeling Lincoln, because that is what he did.

ADDED:

I know that I'll put the general feel of some of your posts, or those of Iron, together and give you a distillation of the points you try to make, but at least those are in the 5 or 4 ring at worst.  What you said there, about my supposed ignoring the thoughts that the war would happen, isn't even in the general direction of the target.  Some of the directions you take what you claim I said makes me wonder just what you were reading.

Joe
look it up. A republic is a nation--not a confederation.
Joe---I certainly do think I am correct. Lincoln thought so, many people thought so, Sam Houston thought so. This is not something I made up. I think it is true today.
There are options but none under law.
I keep wondering why you ignore the thoughts that this war was going to happen sooner or later.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

You are comparing apples to oranges.

This quotation does not address the question of states rights. It addresses what is usually called "the right to revolution."
 In 1861, Lincoln sincerely believed that a small minority of southerners had manipulated the political process to overawe the majority of southern citizens and that secession was not supported by the majority of southern citizens. He believed that the political South (by which he meant adult white men) opposed secession and that secession conventions were illegal and unrepresentative.
 That is why he thought going to war over secession was not opposing a genuine revolution of the southern people.
 You may disagree with his thinking but he really did think about this and articulate a theory that many other northerners agreed with as well as southern unionists who did not recognize the south's secession.
 But to repeat myself, Lincoln's words refer to the right of revolution, not to states' rights doctrine.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080810190553AAJ2yRJ

Just because somebody doesn't see it your way doesn't make them a hypocrit.
Can't your arguments hold up without the need for name calling?

Yes, he belived and thought those things, but that doesn't make his beliefs the law of the land.  The legislatures of the southern states DID legally pass bills of secession which were legally signed by the governors of those states.  And, again (and again and again and again) there is not a word in the Constitution, or in the federal law at that time, that made secession illegal or unconstitutional.  No one brought up those arguments when the New England states threatened to withdraw from the Union several times.  Why suddenly are they brought up when the southern states withdraw? 

Oh, and how can you construe the words "Any people anywhere, " to not apply to a state?  ANY PEOPLE...how can you claim with any logic that it means "any people except those in the southern states?"

[SouthernByGrace]

ironfoot, how am I comparing apples to oranges? You can never have a complete understanding of the Constitution without first understanding the AOF. From your posts, it is your assertion that the government under the Constitution is perpetual. I ask you from what part of it do you derive this belief. You give me opinions of others, not wording from the Constitution itself. I give you a perfect example of a government that actually was perpetual, and give you wording from that document to show that it actually states that it was to be perpetual.

The only comparison of the two is to show what a perpetual government looks like and what a non perpetual government looks like, if for no other reason, to demonstrate that our Constitution does Not make our government perpetual. These are not a "Next Generation" bunch of people forming these two separate governments but the exact same people! There is a reason they omitted to language of perpetuity from the Constitution. Most of the states were very uncomfortable with that restriction. The first 3 secession movements in this country were made by the same 5 New England states. Nobody questioned Their power to withdraw from the Union.

Coincidentally, the upstate locale of Town Line, New York did vote to secede from the Union, contributing several troops to the Confederacy. Town Line did not rejoin the union until 1946; its residents did not pay taxes during its time "out of the union," which amounted to 85 years. They were never invaded by Union Forces and they remained OUTSIDE the Union for 85 YEARS!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_secession#New_York_City_secession

SBG

[ironfoot]

I provided the argument made by President Lincoln, who was a lawyer, in his first inaugural address.
Yeah, I suppose you could call that the 'the opinion of others.'
If secession was envisioned, it would have been spelled out in the Constitution.
There were provisions for adding states, why no provision for secession?
Would secession require majority vote, or a super majority?
How would the timing be decided?
When would tax obligations cease?
How would Union property be divied up?
Would the land under Fort Sumter belong to the seceding states? How about the Union made improvements? How about the arms and munitions that were paid for by the Union?
The Constitution did not address any of those questions, because secession was not envisioned.


But you wanted an argument based on the Constitution itself, so here goes:
Here is Article I Section 10:
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay

The Southern states violated that provision in many ways, starting by entering into a Confederation.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec10

As far as Town Line NY is concerned, it is interesting trivia, but so what?

During the American Civil War, as casualties on both side increased and the nature of the Civil War changed, the secession was slowly forgotten by members of the community but never revoked. During World War II, it was discovered that Town Line had not rejoined the Union, and on January 26, 1946, Town Line voted to officially join the Union. Even today, the local volunteer fire company has the words "Last of the Rebels" on their shoulder patch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Line,_New_York

[SouthernByGrace]

When the states seceded, they were no longer bound by the U.S. Constitution but by their Own Constitution. The Confederation was not entered into until After each state seceded.

The North, however, WAS still bound by the Constitution. Reckon how many times they broke the law under it? You can't count that high.

SBG

[SouthernByGrace]

If secession was envisioned, it would have been spelled out in the Constitution.
There were provisions for adding states, why no provision for secession?
Would secession require majority vote, or a super majority?
How would the timing be decided?
When would tax obligations cease?
How would Union property be divied up?
Would the land under Fort Sumter belong to the seceding states? How about the Union made improvements? How about the arms and munitions that were paid for by the Union?
The Constitution did not address any of those questions, because secession was not envisioned.

They DID envision secession. They REMOVED the obstacle of secession when they omitted the requirement of perpetuity. Thomas Jefferson wrote about it many times. It was purposely omitted. The 10th Amendment was just that, an AMENDMENT. They came back and created this Amendment to cover just such a situation as secession. It was not part of the original body of the Constitution. It was an afterthought and it clears up ANY argument on secession. You can't argue with that. It is THAT Precise. The Power of secession was NOT Delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR Was it PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, therefore, that POWER WAS and IS reserved to the states respectively, or to the people (Town Line, NY).
The federal government, under the Constitution, TAUGHT secession as a right of the states from 1827 to 1866 at a federal military academy at West Point, NY. They most certainly DID envision secession. They envisioned it to the point that they didn't stop teaching until AFTER the War was over.

Secession required a 2/3 vote in the Congress of each state.

The timing was decided by the states respective of when they felt it was time for them to leave. Example: Only seven states formed the CSA originally. The others didn't secede until Lincoln called for the invasion of the those states.

Each state's federal tax obligations ceased when their secession vote was passed in their congress.

The Union property within any seceding state's boundary became property of that state, and ultimately became property of the Confederate government (forts). This is NO different than when we seceded from Britain. Any British property (forts) within a given state became property of that state, and ultimately became property of the United States.

The land at Fort Sumter and arms and munitions paid for by the Union are NO different than the British forts four score and seven years earlier. It was the exact same situation. In fact, many forts were the same ones the British lost. The Constitution did not have to address such questions. They had been through this before, with Britain.

[subdjoe]

I provided the argument made by President Lincoln, who was a lawyer, in his first inaugural address.
Yeah, I suppose you could call that the 'the opinion of others.'
If secession was envisioned, it would have been spelled out in the Constitution.
There were provisions for adding states, why no provision for secession?

OK, it is quite clear that you don't understand the Constitution of the United States, what it address or how it works.

It doesn't mention secession because, now try to keep up here, it was a matter for the individual States.  The Constitution is strictly about the powers of the federal government of the United States, the powers ceded to it, and how it works.  There are very few instances in it where it addresses what states may or may not do.  You pointed out some of them when you made your false claim that the seceeded states acted illegally into their own Confederation.

Here are the prohibitions:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The framers didn't spell out secession because it was NOT a power ceded to the federal government. 

You are using typical modern "the government has to spell everything out in detail" liberal view to judge mid-19th century people and politics. 

[SouthernByGrace]

Right again, Joe. Before the War, the Federal Government did not dictate to the states, the states dictated to the Federal Government. That's the way it was designed to be.
Before 1865, people all over the world said the United States ARE...
After 1865, they said the United States IS...

SBG

[subdjoe]

Right again, Joe. Before the War, the Federal Government did not dictate to the states, the states dictated to the Federal Government. That's the way it was designed to be.
Before 1865, people all over the world said the United States ARE...
After 1865, they said the United States IS...

SBG

Thank you, sir. 

Another important matter that the Constitution doesn't, or didn't, spell out for the States was voting. Who could vote, who couldn't, where and how they voted, etc.  So I guess, per Irons reasoning, since the Constitution didn't spell out in detail who could vote, no one could vote before the ratification of the 14th Amendment.  And women couldn't vote anywhere until the ratification of the 19th.



And, Iron, I'm NOT putting words in your mouth, I'm using YOUR reasoning that unless the Constitution spells out a right of the people or State, it doesn't exist. See your post about no right to secession because the Constitution doesn't spell it out - "If secession was envisioned, it would have been spelled out in the Constitution.".  Just substitute "suffrage" or "voting" for "secession" and apply your reasoning.

[williamlayton]

Good conversation.
In response to a comment about twisted logic--I agree, one side or the other has logic twisted.
A Confederation is a treaty between Nations--a binding under a treaty/agreement. In such a situation not one of the nations is bound in perpetuity. A Republic is one Nation--bound.
Now lets break it down in smaller points. Can a county within a state claim the same rights that are taken by the State in a confederation? I would think you would say that is heresy. A county is bound to the state in perpetuity. A county in Georgia can't back out and declare itself a county of Alabama.
I don't understand the argument that the Federal Government is different than the Confederation 's federal government--it is elected officials. You can swing a bat at the government but must take responsibilty that the people elected them.
When I said that the war was acomin--I mean that there were two people who were bound that they would control this land. That means that there would be a nation in perpetuity guided by one faction or the other.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Ah, argument of the absurd.  Is there any fallacy that you won't try, Willy?

Willy, the counties founded neither the states nor the federal government.  And the federal government did not found the states.  Try to keep up.

[SouthernByGrace]

Good conversation.
In response to a comment about twisted logic--I agree, one side or the other has logic twisted.

You are absolutely right. YOU are the one twisting the logic that is put before you.

A Confederation is a treaty between Nations--a binding under a treaty/agreement. In such a situation not one of the nations is bound in perpetuity. A Republic is one Nation--bound.

I'm going to step out on a limb here, and say I KNOW you are not that stupid. I am, at the very least, pretty certain of it.
A Confederation is a treaty between Nations--a binding under a treaty/agreement. In such a situation not one of the nations is bound in perpetuity??
Are you Kidding me? Have you ever READ the AOC? The AOC WAS a perpetual government, AND a Confederation! It SAYS so in the document itself! The Republic under the Constitution was intentionally created WITHOUT perpetuty!

There is no way in Hell you ever passed a History class, my friend. 

Before the War, each state was sovereign and an independent entity under the Constitution. That is what made our free government so unique, Willy. Saint Abraham and the money-grubbing industrialists of the North needed more centralized power so they could carry out their goals of settling the new territories with Their people, and Their immoralities, to expand Their culture while denying the South the right to do the same thing.

Now lets break it down in smaller points. Can a county within a state claim the same rights that are taken by the State in a confederation? I would think you would say that is heresy. A county is bound to the state in perpetuity. A county in Georgia can't back out and declare itself a county of Alabama.

YES, Willy. They CAN. Town Line, NY is the Perfect example. Have you not read any of these posts? What is wrong with you? Town Line, NY seceded from the county it was in, AND from the state of New York, AND from the United States. They even sent troops to fight For the Confederacy! They didn't rejoin the Union until 1946! What better example Do you need? Why are you even asking the question? This has already been established. And it was done under the Constitution! Nobody has claimed a county in one state could "back out and declare itself a county of" another state.

The Confederate Constitution provided for secession, right down to the neighborhood, and even the individual person!

I don't understand the argument that the Federal Government is different than the Confederation 's federal government--it is elected officials. You can swing a bat at the government but must take responsibilty that the people elected them.

Wait, WHAT??? 

Let me get this straight. YOU don't understand the argument that the two separate governments were different, just because they were elected? Then you're not qualified to even be discussing this. 

Let me break it down for You, Willy. I was establishing the fact that it was not a different generation of people who seceded from the AOC, but the exact SAME people that created the Republic under the Constitution. Those SAME people saw the error of having a government that was forcibly perpetual, as it stated in the AOC. They recognized the flaws of that Confederation and abolished it.

Now I'm REALLY gonna blow your mind, Willy. The South was a Confederation with a Constitution, that was NOT perpetual! 

When I said that the war was acomin--I mean that there were two people who were bound that they would control this land. That means that there would be a nation in perpetuity guided by one faction or the other.
Blessings

Willy, the CSA never tried to overtake the government of the U.S. Pay attention here, now. "They threw off their old government for one that better suited them." They didn't want to control the United States, they left it and created their OWN nation!

And blessings to you too, Willy


SBG

[subdjoe]

SBG, here I'm going to disagree with you.  Town Line not withstanding (I think it was a case of the rest of the state saying "who cares?  Too small to bother with), I would have to say that it would depend on how the State Constitution is written.  Counties and municipalities are constructs of the State, as the federal government is a construct of the several states, and so under control of the State.

On the other hand, the federal government DOES recognize the right of counties to secede from a state, otherwise we would not have the state we know as West Virginia.  Of course, the cultural differences between the east and west portions of VA, and the barrier of the mountains I think made some sort of split inevitable.

And we have the example of the State of Maine:

Maine was physically separate from the rest of Massachusetts. Long-standing disagreements over land speculation and settlements led to Maine residents and their allies in Massachusetts proper forcing an 1807 vote in the Massachusetts Assembly on permitting Maine to secede; the vote failed. Secessionist sentiment in Maine was stoked during the War of 1812 when Massachusetts pro-British merchants opposed the war and refused to defend Maine from British invaders. In 1819, Massachusetts agreed to permit secession if voters in Maine approved. Due to these considerations and rapid population growth, in 1820 Maine voted to secede from Massachusetts, and the secession and formation of the state of Maine as the 23rd state occurred on March 15, 1820 as part of the Missouri Compromise.

So, a qualified "Yes" to the ability of a county or counties to secede from a State. With approval of the legislature.  But that has nothing at all to do with the several States which created the Union of their own free will having the right to leave that association. 

[SouthernByGrace]

Good points joe. I know Town Line was an isolated incident, but I was just showing where it could and did happen.
Yeah, the West Virginia thing is a mess, too. I'll bet the citizens of Virginia were never given the chance to vote on those counties leaving their state, especially the eastern part of the state.  Just another example of one of the ways ole Abe violated the Constitution.

SBG